spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

SPF - ISP's vs Corporate

2004-01-22 00:08:18
Recently, Meng asked the ISP's on the list:
Could ISPs please weigh in on whether your email/spam bandwidth cost is
signicant or not, thanks.

To which there were many replies roughly containing "Yes, it would be better
for me to stop an email before the DATA portion".  I understand AND I AGREE.
But the real data desired is what are the relative benefits of that method
vs. accepting the whole method and using SPF as part of a suite of anti-spam
rules?  Only a couple of answers gave relevant information:
I'd save at least 1% of my total budget if spam dissapeared, and nearly
20% of my bandwidth budget.
and
Ok, for me its around 25% of overall traffic.  Compared to legitimate
email,
that number increases substantially to around 45%.
Now, I'd say that the first answer is not an argument for terminating at
SMTP time while the second could be....

Seriously, though, have you considered to what degree this list is skewed
toward ISP's?  Yes, ISP's are a significant player in this arena, but NOT
THE ONLY ONE.  Companies such as Paypal, Citibank, Bank of America,
Merrill-Lynch etc., have much more riding on this than the relative bandwith
consumption.  As a corporate user, I have a surplus of bandwith.  I have
sized my pipe within the constraints of cost and performance.  I have a 768K
SDSL line that is probably at 30-50% utilization on a given day (during
business hours).  Probably under 5% off-hours.  My bandwith-cost of spam is
ZERO, as is my CPU-cost.  If I eliminated spam, I would not save any money
at all.  Nearly all cost-analyses of spam refer to the costs that
corporations incur and nearly every one that I have read practically
dismisses the costs of bandwith and CPU time.  The biggest cost to
corporations is face time in dealing with spam.

And I would offer that when talking about even some of the players
previously referenced, your perceptions are off.  A case in point: Yahoo!
All information was taken from Yahoo's most recent quarterly statement.
1)  Yahoo defines Cost of Revenues as "the expenses associated with the
production and usage of the Yahoo! network. These costs primarily consist of
fees paid to third parties for content included on our online media
properties, Internet connection charges, equipment depreciation, technology
license fees and compensation related expenses."
2)  For that quarter, Cost of Revenues was about $41 Million.
3)  For that quarter, "Costs and Expenses" totalled over $210 Million. (so
Cost of Rev = 19.5%)

I'd guess that spam-caused bandwith utilization is not the major portion of
Yahoo's Internet connection charges, let alone their Cost of Revenues.

I am highly dedicated to SPF and desperately want to see it succeed.  I am
just asking to be heard.  Again, althought there may be a lot of ISP-related
parties on this list and therefore participants in the development of the
protocol, please consider the relative cost of the excess bandwith to ALL
parties.  You (the ISP's and especially the forwarders such as pobox.com)
are the MOST SEVERLY affected group in this matter--nobody comes even close.
Don't let it cloud the discussion of how SPF fits in with overall anti-spam
efforts.  As I have stated before and continue to believe, accepting the
message and processing it afterward has its benefits....

Sincerely,
Marc Alaia

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>